Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1985-08-27 9431 MINUTES OF THE 502nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF t LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 27, 1985, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 502nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. R. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with approx- imately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow Donald Vyhnalek Jeannne Hildebrandt C. Russ Smith Michael Duggan Michael Soranno Donna Naidow Members absent: Herman Kluver Sue Sobolewski Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council ; otherwise the petition is leterminated. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 85-7-1-19 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Inkster Road and Harrison in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 and P to P.S. Mr. Shane: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering/Building Department stating there are no engineering problems in connection with this petition. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. Clark, Clark-Fron Realty, 27492 Five Mile Road: I am owner and partner of Clark- Fron Realty. My reaction to this proposal is that something you have worked for all your life, someone else comes along to take it from you. I have a good-looking building on this lot. When I bought it, it had been zoned commercial for a long time and I bought it with the knowledge that commercial zoning was the proper place for my real estate business and now after investing much effort and money, I find that the value of it as commercial property will be watered down and my occupancy as a real estate office becomes a nonconforming use. Mr. Morrow: As opposed to commercial , it would be more of a general office use. Mr. Clark: When I built, the City also insisted that I build a suitable commercial building. It wasn't something I wanted to do at the time but we did it. Now this would make it nonconforming and make it difficult to sell for another use or even a real estate office. Anybody wanting to use it would have to ask for a special approval . The area is generally commercial . If we had that many doctors and dentists, it would be fine but there aren't that many. There are other commercial uses in the area, and only two professional uses in there now. What is proposed will strike 9432 down all the commercial uses and only benefit the doctors that are in there now. I Mr. Duggan: People who are in buildings now won't be stopped from using them as they are? Mr. Shane: That is correct. The real estate won 't be a nonconforming use. Should another real estate want to go in if he moves out, he would be granted a building permit. Another use might require a waiver of use. Mr. Duggan: From the time I have been on the Commission , when insurance companies asked for waivers to go into a particular district, they have been granted them. This isn 't something that is likely to cause a greal deal of trouble. Michael VanEss, owner of Livonia Sauna: I own the Livonia Sauna and am trying to being up a business. The original business has been there since 1949. If it goes to P.S. and I decide to sell the business as a sauna, I want to know how it will effect me. I purchased it to build up a sauna and will I be able to sell it as another sauna or will I be hurt? Mr. Morrow: One of the reasons this carte up is that for a number of years this has been shown on the Future Land Use Plan as professional as opposed to commercial . The Future Land Use Plan is a long term plan. The Planning Commission had in mind that there seemed to be a large amount of com- mercial in there and we thought professional service would be more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. 1110e`Mr. Shane: As far as the sauna is concerned, it is already a legal , nonconforming use. If this is changed to P.S. , it will be no more or less nonconform- ing and you could sell it for the same business. If you wanted to expand, you may have difficulty. Ann Conley, 27610 Five Mile Road: Does this mean I have to give up my house? Could I sell ? Mr. Shane : P.S. would not make you any more or less nonconforming. Dorothy Bruce, 29218 Broadmoor: I had a number of calls from people in the area. In the case of Ann Conley, she would have P.S. on one side and C-1 on the other and I don't think she would like that situation. We do have small commercial businesses which are good businesses but I am concerned about the property across the street from the P.S. The C-2 is more of a danger than the C-1 and causes a lot of problems along the strip. The property presently in use as C-1 appears to be okay but I am concerned about what could come in the C-2. P.S. actually wouldn' t deteriorate the property because P.S. is controlled. Even if it is rezoned to P.S. , someone with a good use could come in and get it rezoned again. I am asking that you look more into the commercial across the street. Mr. Morrow: What was the nature of the calls you received? Mrs. Bruce: They wanted to know what was going onand what you are going to do. 1 think it looks like you are trying to control the area by rezoning it. 4Mr. Clark: Mrs. Conley asked what would happen if she wanted to sell her property. If she has to sell it as P.S. , then she has a problem of getting a doctor or CPA whereas if it is commercial she would have a much wider market. I think this petition takes away a great deal of the market 9433 should she want to sell . I think it takes away from the market of the whole area. There just aren't that many buyers for professional service. You reduce the value of the property by making it less saleable. Mr. Morrow: For some reason, people want to build professional service and ask for a waiver of use for general office uses. I see more of that than I do of commercial . There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-7-1 -19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #8-185-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 on Petition 85-7-1-19 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Inkster Road and Harrison in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 and P to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-7-1-19 be approved for the following reasons : (1) The proposed changes of zoning are supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends office uses for the area. (2) The proposed changes of zoning will prevent further proliferation IV of commercial uses in an area already adequately served by com- mercial facilities. (3) The proposed changes of zoning will encourage the future use of the subject lands for uses which are more compatible to adjacent residential uses. (4) The proposed changes of zoning will aid in the prevention of more strip commercial development along Five Mile Road. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Smith: I think there is some communication gap here when a resident asks if they can still stay in their home. That is not the intent of the Commis- sion. The intent is to make the area more in harmony with the uses there now. You can stay in your home and you can sell it as a home. And, it is better to have professional than to face the development of a party store next to your home. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-7-1-20 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the east side of Beatrice Avenue, north of Schoolcraft in the Southeast 1/4 of ISection 23 from C-1 to R-1 . Ir. Shane: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicating that there are no engineering problems connected with this petition. 9434 Stephen Foley, 300 E. Maple Road, Birmingham: I am an attorney and am here on behalf of some of the residents in the area who own property south of this lot (Lots 10b1 & 10b2) . Those individuals have owned the land for an extended period of time. The reason we are objecting to this rezoning is because of the hardship on my clients for future development. With the additional residential behind them it could put a hardship on the future development and they are contemplating developing the property. C-1 to R-1 would require additional investment and also coming before you in order to try to develop it. We would like you to consider something we have owned as commercial and hope that you would not hold back the development of the property. Residential being behind them could pose additional hardships. Mr. Morrow: Do they own the property under consideration : Mr. Foley: No, but we are concerned about the effect the zoning of this property would have on our property. There would be a requirement for a wall between the properties. Mr. Morrow: It could be waived but we don ' t know whether or not it would be. Who are the owners of the two houses abutting on the west. Mr. Shane : The purpose of this rezoning is that their lots would be all in one zoning. The hardship he is talking about has to do with setback. Mr. Soranno: What would you consider putting on that parcel? Mr. Foley:IF At this point in time, we are in the process of negotiating with Michigan Bell for a small station of some sort with regard to telephones. It would be a terminal station. This is about the only piece of property they could have and we are talking about a possibly small structure. The potential for this site is very good. My client has indicated a possibility of extending his present business. This rezoning could put a damper of any development of the property. Mr,. Smith: I think the hardship is very minimal . No matter what you do there, you will have to put the wall up. It has been deeded to the residential property owners and this is just a clean-up process for people who have C-1 for a backyard. Mr. Foley: We were not aware that the land had already been deeded. Robert Ewald, 13962 Beatrice : I am the owner of Lot 202, and I am also representing my next door neighbor. I originally wrote a letter requesting this rezoning because my backyard was commercial . They will have to put a wall four lots long in if they build, and I can't see that setback would be a problem with just a small station being built there. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-7-1-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was 1[8-186-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 on Petition 85-7-1 -20 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the east side of Beatrice Avenue, north of Schoolcraft in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 from C-1 to R-1 , the City Planning Commission 9435 does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-7-1 -20 be a approved for the following reasons : (1) The proposed change of zoning will remove commercial zoning from residentially used property. (2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission policy of having zoning and land use compatible. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-8-2-29 by Sedar Enterprises requesting waiver use approval to locate general office uses within a building proposed to be constructed on the south- west corner of Middlebelt and Wentworth in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Shane: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal . Iry Kamp, 33200 Schoolcraft: I am one of the owners of Sedar Enterprises. We are presently erecting the building and I request that we be allowed to lease to general office as well as professional service. Half of the building is rented now to professional service and we believe we can include some general office use. Il11 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-8-2-29 closed. e On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #8-187-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 on Petition 85-8-2-29 by Sedar Enterprises requesting waiver use approval to locate general office uses within a building proposed to be constructed on the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Wentworth in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-8-2-29 be approved subject to the following condition: (1) that all site development shall be regulated in accordance with the previously approved Site and Building Plans as approved by Planning Commission Resolution #8-188-84; for the following reasons : (1) The subject property has the capacity to support the proposed use. (2) The proposed use complies with all waiver use requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (3) The proposed use will cause little change in the intensity of II: use experienced if the site were used exclusively for uses permitted in the. P,S. Zoning District. R 9436 FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance [adopL ted. with the provisions of Section 23,05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-8-2-30 by Wendy's International requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing building located on the west side of Middle- belt Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 . Mr. Shane: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that there are no engineering problems in connection with this petition. Mr. Morrow: Usually we ask the petitioner or his representative to come forward but he advised us that neither can be here because of pressing business matters. We will , however, go forward with the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to speak to come forward. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-8-2-30 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Duggan , it was #8-188-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 on Petition 85-8-2-31 by Wendy's International requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing building located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 85-8-2-30 until such time as the petitioner or his representative can be present. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES; Smith, Duggan, Soranno, Morrow NAYS: Hildebrandt, Vyhnalek, Naidow ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-8-2-31 by Wendy's International requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Harrison Roads in the North- west 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Shane: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems connected with this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-8-2-31 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Duggan, it was 9437 #8-189-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 on Petition 85-8-2-31 by Wendy's International requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Harrison Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 85-8-2-31 until such time as the petitioner or his representative can be present. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Duggan, Soranno, Morrow NAYS: Hildebrandt. Vyhnalek, Naidow ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-8-2-32 by Twin Valley Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct general offices on property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Shane : There is a letter in the file from the Fire Department stating that the ingress and egress lanes off Farmington Road should be increased from 18' to 20' , and that the fire hydrant should be relocated from its current position east of building D to a traffic island immediately south 100 of that to eliminate parking interference with water supply. A letter from the Engineering Division notes that there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service the site and that Norfolk Avenue, according to the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan, is to be 86' wide. Donald Summers, representing Twin Valley Corporation, 24189 Twin Valley Ct. Farmington Hills : We propose a site similar to what we did at Schoolcraft and • Merriman. Regarding the Engineer's report which states there are no storm sewers -- there is a storm manhole with a lead and when I checked with Engineering, they do not have any working drawings of such. Apparently the plans are lost. We are proposing to save as many trees as possible. To the east, there is quite a large distance between the residents and our proposed building; in excess of 100' . Mr. Shane : The site plan does recognize the 86' width if it should be necessary. John Nienhaus, 33409 Norfolk: I have lived here for 28 years. My concern is the buildings which are north of this on the west side across from this parcel which have commercial signs, and what is going to surround this 70 home area. And, I would like clarified what size buildings are going on this parcel . Mr. Morrow: The area you speak of as commercial is residential , in the RUFA zone, and the fact that the signs say commercial realty has nothing to do with the zoning. 110 4Mr. Bakewell explained the site plan in detail to the Commission and persons in the audience. /Robert Nash, 20245 Shadyside : The Leather Bottle storm is on Shadyside and I think the reason is that there is none on Farmington Road. I would like to see as many trees as possible kept on the site. 9438 Mr. Smith : You might want to call the Engineering Division regarding any storm sewer 11 problems. Mr. Nash: There was a petition before on the same property. Mr. Shane: The petition before you then was to rezone the property. This petition concerns the use of the property. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-8-2-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #8-190-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 on Petition 85-8-2-32 by Twin Valley Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct general offices on property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-8-2-32 be approved subject to the following conditions : (1) that the Site Plan, as revised, dated August 5 , 1985, prepared by Twin Valley Corporation, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Landscape Plan, as revised, dated August 26, 1985, prepared by Twin Valley Corporation , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition ; and (3) that the Building Elevation Plan marked Job #68354, prepared by Twin Valley Corporation, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons : (1 ) The proposed use complies with all waiver use requirements and standards set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted, Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-7-3-6 by the City Planning Commission to vacate Priscilla Lane, north of Plymouth. Road, west of Stark Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28. 9439 Mr. Shane: It is noted in a letter dated August 6, 1985 from the Engineering Division that if Priscilla Lane is to be vacated, it will be necessary to re-ditch some areas along the Boston Post Road right-of-way as well as remove the existing gravel within the Priscilla Lane right-of-way. Some gravel would have to be retained in order to allow access to an existing garage located on Lot 20. The Detroit Edison Company's letter states they have no objection provided satisfactory arrangements are made with the petitioner for the relocation or protection of any existing Edison equipment. The letter from Consumers Power Company indicates that they have no facilities within the proposed area to be vacated. The Fire Department has indicated by letter that they have no objections to the proposed vacating and a letter from the Traffic Bureau states that the closure of Priscilla Lane would eradicate the annoyance to residents of Boston Post brought about by vehicles cutting through between Stark and Plymouth Road, and that the closure of this street would not necessarily hamper emergency police access to the area. Irene Davis, 11624 Boston Post : I am against closing this. I use Priscilla Lane quite a bit. I don't think everyone in the neighborhood should have to go out to Stark to get to Plymouth Road. Mr. Smith: When Wendy's is opened, do you feel that would have any bearing on your objection? Ms. Davis : From what I understand, there will be another lane and that should help. [MS. Driscoll , 11677 Boston Post (Lot 20) : We are the only house on the corner of the street. I came home today and there was a back up of cars at Plymouth and Stark. These streets will be paved and I will have to pay for Boston Post and Priscilla lane so that people can speed through the subdivision. Mr. Morrow: You would like to see the road closed? Ms. Driscoll : Yes, I would. Mr. Vyhnalek; If they close the road, what happens to the property? Mr. Shane : If Priscilla Lane is vacated, half the right-of-way will go to Ms. Driscoll and half to the other property on the east. Mr. Vyhnalek: The City will not plow it? Ms. Driscoll : No, they don't plow it now. Mr. Shane: She would just retain the 30' . Joseph Vanzo, 12066 Boston Post Road: If the road is vacated, would it be barricaded? Mr. Shane : It would become private property. Mrs. Driscoll could take her half of the road and Wendy's would take their half and stop them from making a street there. Mr. Vanzo: Is that the only way it can be vacated? )1r. Morrow: Yes, if the City vacates it, it goes to the abutting property owners. Mr. Vanzo: There are several people who feel there should be a deceleration lane on Plymouth Road. That would alleviate another lane of traffic at this 9440 intersection at certain hours of the day. Mr. Morrow: The deceleration lane would be put in to benefit Wendy's and there would be an increase in traffic. 1[ Mr. Vanzo: We feel we are victims of circumstances. There are people in the area who like to use Priscilla Lane to get to Plymouth Road. I blame the City for not maintaining the street with police. The police do come and they give out a lot of tickets in a hurry. Then people don't use it but they come back before long. Stark Road is no easy situation and we feel we would be put out by having to use Stark Road instead of Priscilla Lane. Mrs. Bruce: Why not just abandon half the street and leave the rest open. Mr. Smith : AS one Commissioner, I am not in favor of closing half the street. Maybe we are jumping the gun with our petition and should possibly table this until Wendy's does open and the deceleration lane is in use. Resident, 34550 Beacon: There are times when I can't get out on Stark because of the traffic being jammed up from the railroad track and have to come up to Priscilla Lane to get out. I think it would be a shame to close Priscilla. Mrs. Driscoll : That is the problem -- Stark does get backed up and you can't expect the police to be out there every day. I go to work every day and have to wait for the traffic. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-7-3-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was 4 #8-191-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 1[, on Petition 85-7-3-6 by the City Planning Commission to vacate Priscilla Lane, north of Plymouth Road, west of Stark Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-7-3-6 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed street vacating would eliminate any direct means of access from Alden Village Subdivision to Plymouth Road. (2) The proposed street vacating would be detrimental to maintenance of a proper road system for the neighborhood. (3) The proposed street vacating would eliminate any buffer area between the abutting residential area and the commercial zoning district. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 on Petition 85-7-3-6 by the City Planning Commission to vacate Priscilla Lane I 9441 north of Plymouth Road, west of Stark Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 85-7-3-6 for a period of six weeks until Wendy's Restaurant completed. 1:A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Duggan , Morrow ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the resolution fails. A roll call vote on the original denying resolution resulted in the following : AYES: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Smith, Morrow NAYS : Vyhnalek, Duggan, Na i dow ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the original denying resolution is adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-7-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 11 .03 and 16. 11 of Zoning Ordinance #543 relating to rustproofing businesses in C-1 and M-1 Zoning Districts. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-7-6-3 closed. a motion by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, jt was 8-192-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 27, 1985 on Petition 85-7-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 11 .03 and 16.11 of Zoning Ordinance #543 relating to rustproofing businesses in C-2 and M-1 Zoning Districts, the City Planning Commis- sion does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-7-6-3 be approved for the following reasons : (1) The proposed language amendment will clear up ambiguities currently existing in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to rustproofing operations. (2) The proposed language amendment will provide the City with a means of restricting rustproofing operations to more appropriate locations. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. tiIr.. Morrow announced that the public hearing: port ion of the meeting is concluded and :he Commission will proceed with items pending before it. 9442 On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was #8-193-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated August 16, 1985 from Melvin Belovicz the City Planning Commission does hereby grant an extension for a period of sixty (60) days of the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Sunset Park Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Louise Avenue between Six Mile Road and Curtis in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 . Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt and seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was #8-194-85 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 501st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 13, 1985 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES : Hildebrandt, Soranno, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Duggan, Morrow ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adotped. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was 4 #8-195-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 85.8-8-18P by Walter Mistak requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing commercial building on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in Section 28 subject to the following con- ditions : (1) that the Site and Landscape Plan by Nationwide Builders, Inc. , designated as Sheet A-1 , dated 8/11/85 , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevations by Nationwide Builders , Inc. , designated as Sheet A-3, dated 8/1/85, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that the proposed signs shown on Sheet A-1 which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that all landscaping on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site prior to completion of the addition and thereafter main- .- tained in a healthy condition. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 9443 On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #8-196-85 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to reconsider its action taken in Resolution #8-180-85 wherein the request from Nick Ficorelli , Satellite Technologies, for approval of the Commission of a change in the location of a satellite disc located at 35611 Six Mile Road was denied. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Soranno, Vyhnalek, Duggan, Morrow NAYS: Hildebrandt, Naidow, Smith ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Carries`e was present and stated that he knew nothing about the other meetings of the Commission or the requirements of the City, that those matters are covered in a contract he has with the contractor. He said the dish is up now and he has no objection to its appearance and his neighbors have no objection to it. It had to go on the roof because of the tree and it is written in the contract that it is subject to the approval of the City of Livonia. Mr. Duggan asked if there had been any complaints on this and Mr. Nagy replied, no. ' Discussion was held regarding the location of the antenna on the roof and to what extent it could be seen from Six Mile Road. Mr. Vyhnalek stated he thought Mr. Carriere is a victim of Satellite Technologies and that lthe Commission should remember that if he comes back again. This is why I wanted this brought back to hear what he had to say. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #8-197-85 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to rescind Resolution #8-180-85 and does approve the request from Nick Ficorelli , Satellite Technologies, requesting approval of a change in the location of a satellite dish on property located at 35611 Six Mile Road subject to the following condition : (1) that the revised Site Plan and,specifications submitted with Permit Application #1789 by Don Carrieri which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #8-198-85 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application #2011 by Woodland Lanes requesting approval for a roof mounted satellite disc antenna on a building located on the south side of Plymouth Road in Section 33 subject to the following condition : I 9444 (1) that the Site Plan and specifications submitted with Permit #2011 by Woodland Lanes which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ;adopted. Mr. Smith left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and returned at 9 :40 p.m. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was #8-199-85 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application #2012 by Satellite Communication Systems requesting approval for a ground satellite disc antenna on property located on the corner of Golfview and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8, subject to the following condition: (1) that the Site Plan and specifications submitted with Permit #2012 by Satellite Communication Systems which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was `'#8-200-85 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application #2017 by John G. Tinskey requesting approval for a ground satellite disc antenna on property located on the west side of Riga, west of Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24, subject to the following condition: (1) that the Site Plan and specifications submitted with Permit #2017 by John G. Tinskey which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Chairman , declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #8-201-85 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 85-7-8-17P by Marathon Petroleum Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a canopy on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Newburgh Road in Section 18, subject to the following conditions: (1), that the Site and Landscape Plan as shown on Drawing B-4699-4, by Marathon Petroleum Company, dated 8/27/85, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Canopy Elevations as shown on Drawing 5-199-A-1 and 5-199-B-i , by Marathon Petroleum Company, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and a (3) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site by 9445 October 15, 1985 and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. (410Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 4adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 502nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 27, 1985, was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. CITYDh & 9: NING COMMISSION A Donna J. Naidow, Sreta .� ATTEST: R. � r Chia i rma '("11511-1 -- ac